Talk:Rasmea Odeh

Edit warring

Background to this: after I created this article, despite his having been warned by a sysop not to follow my edits and hound me, Tiptoethrutheminefield followed me to this article.

Among his edits, he has three times reverted the entries of two editors (I am one) in the Persondata short description field: here (deleting entry by User:Waacstats; writing "false claim deleted"), and here (deleting entry by Waacstats; writing "Reverting vandalism by Waacstats"), and -- after in my edit summary restoring the Waacstats language I wrote "the refs indicate she is American and was convicted of terrorism", again a third time here (writing "Deleting blp violation").

It is clearly indicated in the article both that the subject is American. And that she was convicted of terrorism.[1][2][3]

I see no BLP violation, and I see no reason for Tiptoethrutheminefield to edit war against two other editors, especially after it has been explained to Tiptoe, and especially since Tiptoe is again hounding me. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please try to stop your support for blp violations. Terrorism is pov wording - as you should well know. Odeh is not an "American criminal", nor an "American terrorist". If you are deluded enough to think you have a complaint of substance against me, either put it up or shut up. However, I want to apologize to Waacstats for my "Reverting vandalism by Waacstats" edit summary. At the time I made the summary I thought he had just restored the deleted wording (American criminal), but after I realized he had changed the wording (though the new wording, American terrorist, was just as inaccurate, and just as unsuitable for a blp article). And since then we discussed the matter here [4], which further tells me that the purpose of Waacstats's edits was not vandalism. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Alleged

Although I recognize this may be a sensitive subject, Odeh did confess and was convicted so her involvement cannot be described as "alleged" in the absence of a legal claim to the contrary. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And in any event, though neither here nor there for wp purposes, the documentary she appeared in supports the same conclusion. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The only place that 'alleged' should appear in this article is "Odeh's allegations of torture and sexual abuse", which I have fixed (since before, the article asserted that 'sources' had surfaced regarding these allegations, while in fact these were simply restatements of Odeh's allegations). 24.191.48.118 (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fact vs. claim in litigation

An IP has reverted me a number of times. When I sought to address the fact that the IP: i) changed text to make it appear that a litigant's claim was not a claim, but rather fact; and ii) added non-RSs. I'll address the first issue now.

I communicated with the IP by multiple edit summaries, and multiple communications on the IP's talkpage (both template and prose). To no avail, as I received no communication back in any form -- just reverts. Until I received this response just now.

Fact vs. Claim in litigation. The subject has been a litigant in two matters. A bombing she was convicted for involvement in, in 1970, and immigration fraud she was found guilty of this month.

The subject, as reported by RSs and reflected in the article, claims: a) her guilty verdict in the bombing was based on a confession. She claims: b) that she was subjected to torture and sexual abuse. And she claims: c) that the torture and sexual abuse led her to confess falsely. Neither court made a finding supporting any of her three claims, as far as we can tell by the RSs.

All three claims were reflected as claims in the article. The IP insists, however, that they be reflected as "facts". And has edit warred with me to make the article reflect the claims as facts.

IP asserts:

"Odeh's sexual abuse/torture ... relates to her claim of a forced confession of her involvement in the ... bombings .... [S]tating that she merely 'claimed that her confession was obtained after days of torture and sexual abuse by the Israeli military while she was in custody.' ... is unacceptable, as it could be interpreted (wrongly, to be clear) that these were simply "allegations," instead of a true account of what happened."

This is clearly wrong. It is appropriate to reflect her controversial claims, which were not found to be the truth (by either court), as claims. And it would be clearly POV to--as IP asserts should be done--have WP state the claims are "a true account of what happened."

In the above post by TreacherousWays, that editor correctly indicated when, in contrast to the above, it is appropriate to treat an allegation as fact because of a court's finding.

Misstatement by IP of relevance to immigration trial. Further, IP asserts that "it is upon this false information that her current immigration fraud trial is based."

That's flatly untrue. The judge at her current immigration fraud trial held the opposite. As reported by the RSs: "In a court filing in July, the judge wrote without commenting on whether the allegations were true that such evidence was irrelevant to whether she lied on immigration documents.". At trial, she was found guilty of lying on immigration documents, the one count she was charged with.

Latest edit. Here is IP's latest edit. I have no problem with the first half-sentence addition.

The second revision is the current crux of the matter. IP changed "She claimed that her confession was obtained after days of torture and sexual abuse by the Israeli military while she was in custody." to "The veracity of the confession has come under scrutiny, however, as reports surface of it being obtained after days of torture and sexual abuse by the Israeli military while Odeh was in captivity."

"Scrutiny" by whom? It's simply litigant's claim. "reports surface"? What reports? Litigant is the only one alleging it, as a first-hand matter, and litigant's supporters simply echos she said it. While this is simply subject's claim, IP seeks to make it something more by referring amorphously to "scrutiny" and "reports surfacing".

The third addition is in part redundant of the prior para (on which basis I have deleted the redundant part).Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that too and removed it. I don't usually edit Wikipedia, but that was such an obvious POV violation. I'm pretty sure the only people who believe she was tortured and raped by Israeli soldiers (and then forced to watch them execute another prisoner as she alleged) are her own partisans. 24.191.48.118 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources -- Mondoweiss article; Common Dreams; Electronic Intifada, etc.

The IP in the above discussion also asserts that the Mondoweiss article is an RS. It's clearly not. The IP states that Mondoweiss is an RS and not a blog.

However, for starters look at the article title -- "In travesty of justice, Rasmea Odeh found guilty despite history of Israeli torture". It is clearly a partisan piece, stating that the federal jury engaged in a "travesty of justice". That's a POV, not RS reporting. And it accepts as fact Odeh's claims -- never upheld by a court -- that she was tortured. Same.

And though the IP asserts that Mondoweiss is not a blog -- it, itself, describes itself ... "Mondoweiss--The War of Ideas in the Middle East" as "a blog."

This is POV-ridden, from the title of the article on, and not an RS. Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Common Dreams does not seem to have support to be used as an RS. I would suggest that if the material it is used for here is notable, a true RS will have reflected it, and we should use that as a ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Electronic Intifada. See the discussion here. Plus, note the conflict of interest ... Ali Hasan Abunimah, co-founder and editor of The Electronic Intifada, has served on the Board of Directors of the Arab American Action Network, which is the organization for which Odeh works.[5] And Charlotte Silver writes a "blog". I would suggest that if the material it is used for here is notable, a true RS will have reflected it, and we should use that as a ref (but we should not use EI). Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the sourcing of assertions (of torture), previously sourced Electronic Intifada, by sourcing them to the Chicago Tribune. One reference sourced to EI remains, in the info box, where EI is the source of her birthplace.ShulMaven (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone keeps on adding back EI. Per the above, it is not an RS here. Also, this in the Nation appears to be written as an opinion piece, and is therefore not an RS either. Epeefleche (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

Add the long-intro template to the page. The lead is clearly too long for the length of the article, and should be appropriately condensed and reformatted. Dmezh (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, agree. Fish+Karate 13:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Small Suggestion

Her current residence is listed as Illinois, even though she was deported to Jordan. Probably should change that for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bford23 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done ShimonChai (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

It's clear that so much of the content on wikipedia pertaining to Palestinians seems to be written by pro-Israeli admins and editors, including this page. Rasmea Odeh is presented as a terrorist and fraud in the opening section of her page. This is certainly the view held by those in power, as is the case with all those who resist oppression. The fact that she was tortured is a monumentally important component of her confession to the original charges and should not be omitted from the summary narrative. In fact, it is well-documented that all Palestinian prisoners are tortured and Israel remained the only country in the world where torture was actually legal until 1999, when it changed its law in words only. Sjabulhawa (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Article seems to already include a discussion about her claims of being tortured. If reliable secondary / tertirary sources present her claims differently or in a more favorable light then we can try to follow them. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Sjabulhawa, articles on Wikipedia tend to reflect those who have worked on them most/added most text, and yes, looking at this, I recognise a couple of staunch pro-Israeli editors among the top contributors.

But: please be specific in which changes you want to the article. Huldra (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationality Table Listing

The table lists her as Jordanian, rather than Palestinian. I suggest it should be changed to Palestinian, or add Palestinian to the table along side Jordanian. Since her Jordanian status is due to the refugee crisis rather than her actually being from Jordan. Thinktank9238327 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Criminal record or a Wikipedia page?

This is more of a criminal record than a Wikipedia page. There is no need for such boring details concerning her cases. What there is more need of is biographical information like any other personality in Wikipedia (e.g., Early life and education; Personal life... etc.) which are completely absent from this Wikipedia page.AhmadNN (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Her Christianity

Why is there no mention of the fact that she is a Christian Palestinian?AhmadNN (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead section is too long and detailed

The lead section of an article should generally be limited to four paragraphs of concise writing that summarizes the subject. Everything that appears in the lead should be expanded upon in the body of the article, below the table of contents. To see how the lead is used for this article, perform a Google search on the article title. Do the search results accurately convey what the subject is notable for? The results I see would suggest not, as two different parts of the lead section are being picked up as part of the search results. Google seems to prefer the second paragraph that starts "Odeh was convicted in 1970 of involvement in two terrorist bombings in Jerusalem in 1969, one of which killed two people, and in 2014 by ...". Which would seem to suggest she was convicted twice. Also, the first paragraph is ignored in the search results, but appears on the sketch biography on the right of the search results. The answers seem inconsistent, but are probably the result of being overly detailed and precise in the first paragraph of the lead section. Personally, I think Google has done a better job than Wikipedia's editors have, and the lead section needs to be rewritten with this in mind. Most of the details in the lead section can be consigned to somewhere else in the article, the lead section should highlight the important or notable facts first and explain that Odeh was (1) involved in 2 terrorist bombings in Jerusalem in 1969, (2) convicted of the murder of the 2 victims, (3) emigrated to the USA after release from prison (4) became a US citizen, (5) but was later stripped after conviction for immigration fraud and deported. (6) The lead section can go on to highlight her advocacy for Palestinians both while in the USA and more recently, but that should appear later in the lead. The details should be moved into the body, and the body of the article divided into more headings each of which covers an aspect of her life, including her early life (birth, childhood, parents, etc.), the terrorist bombings involvement in 1969, the 1970 apprehension, trial and murder convictions, release from prison, emigration to USA, activities in USA, discovery of immigration irregularities, immigration fraud, charges, trial, conviction, deportation, subsequent activities, personal life not covered elsewhere. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking

"Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine" is a blue wikilink each time it appears, including twice in the first two paragraphs. Isn't one link enough? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Well hidden fact: explosive bricks found in her room

US judge mentions that police found "extensive bomb-making materials and explosives" and "explosive bricks in her room". No mention of anyone denying it. Membership in PFLP, also not challenged. The PFLP utilised terror as a "justified means in the liberation struggle". 1+1=?

There's such an avalanche of legalistic details in this "article", that one looses the point: for all we know, she killed 2 young people and injured 7. And then lied when she applied for US citizenship - a PFLP member, that is: Marxist Palestinian, seeking refuge - and where exactly?

If this is an encyclopedia, then I'm Karl Marx. I'm off to finish Das Kapital, and may y'all get the deserved treatment from the masses. Arminden (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of Mondoweiss

As she is a BLP and MW should generally not be used for them, I would like to remove it. Is there a preference regarding specific replacement, and is there a good source describing the torture that is of high quality? FortunateSons (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)